[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / chori / cyoa / dempart / jp / lounge / sissy / socpl / yuri ]

/tg/ - Traditional Games

8chan's leading board in actual discussion
Winner of the 81rd Attention-Hungry Games
/y2k/ - 2000s Nostalgia

Entries for the 2019 Summer Infinity Cup are now open!
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


/tg/ sister boards
[ • /quests//cyoa//erp//monster//his//wh40k//arda//builders//sw//strek/ • ]

File: 01929ee81aa6043⋯.jpeg (12.31 KB, 245x206, 245:206, download.jpeg)

 No.421259

So I am thinking of making a card game like magic but before I invest I want to know what to avoid.

Any anons that used to play magic, what did you like or dislike about it?

 No.421260


 No.421261

For a serious answer:

The different types that aren't just rock-paper scissors is really nice and central to the variety of the game, as is that power isn't a linear increase (strictly better/worse means one card is underpowered or overpowered). This includes MTG's colors, MagiNation's tribes, and Fire Emblem Cipher's subseries/color. You are encoraged to have multiple types

The ability to get landscrewed/energy screwed/ect. or its reverse with a bad opening hand. Duel Monsters "fixes" this by having no resource cards, but this means makes the balance all over the place since an effect either has to have costs in the form of LP payment, discarding cards or tributing, all of which are wildly inconsistent in cost depending on the era and deck, be restricted to bizzare conditions (likely archetype speciffic) or be activated at any time and busted. Fire Emblem Cipher fixes this by having no dedicated resource cards and instead making all cards double as resources since you can play all characters as bonds and any characters of the same name can be used to trigger crit/evade

Dislike: P2W. SJW shit.


 No.421268

Like: interrupt mechanics. Hy fucking shit do I love interruption and counter mechanics. You may as well not make a card game if you don't have any of these.

Dislike: don't make ne buy booster packs ya twat. LCG 4lyfe.


 No.421270

>>421261

Meant to include landscrew under dislike.


 No.421289

>>421259

>like

The absolutely gigantic design space they've allowed themselves, even if CY+5 era Wizards doesn't necessarily capitalize on it. You get lots of unique cards with fun effects, even if they aren't always superstars. Android: Netrunner was another incredibly good example of this; contrast with most nip TCGs like Pokemon and Bushiroad's various stuff, where there isn't any interesting design and everything does just about the same thing in varying amounts.

Also, customization. Incredibly huge. The only thing limiting you on what colors to include in your deck in Magic is how confident you are you'll be able to fix those colors. This also plays well with Magic's fuckhuge card pool, which is a quality that can't be replicated easily, unfortunately.

>dislike

Blind boosters and rarity. Very consumer unfriendly shit.

Keep your politics out of it, it has no place in a goddamn card game.

Check out FFG's LCG line; they replace the blind boosters with expansion packs that always include full playsets of the same cards. Unfortunately, FFG is trying really hard to dispel the notion that LCGs are consumer friendly, and just about every single one of them requires you to buy multiple copies of the core sets if you want full playsets of the cards contained therein. Don't do that shit. All of them also try to break away a little from the mold set by Magic, and so do things a little differently. To this day, Netrunner has been the only game to eclipse Magic in my heart, and is probably the most well-designed card game I've played which is why it had to die, but it plays absolutely nothing like most other card games on the market, enough to have an incredibly steep learning curve if you have played Magic for years prior like I did.

Check out Bushiroad's TCGs; even though I said their card design is flat, the rules are pretty abstract and do weird stuff.

See if you can dig up old WotC card games; you might be able to find scans of some of it floating around. There was apparently a Neopets TCG once upon a time, and I have about a dozen of them in card pages, and they've done tons of others in the past. They've been trying to push some Hasbro IPs recently, like Transformers and MLP, but I have no idea how they play.

Also important, you should look into things like discrete mathematics, statistics, software programming, and game design.


 No.421292

File: cd4d025a4b0d1b6⋯.jpg (134.26 KB, 900x582, 150:97, pyramid_scheme_by_the_spoi….jpg)

The Spoils was a game designed, in part, by ex-MtG pros and industry veterans. They hired talented artists and the best designers they could find. They attempted to address every complaint that fans of MtG had with the game and invented several very nice mechanics and rules that worked around the problems that still plague MtG to this day. They tried having factions with lore and history, while injecting sense of grim tongue-in-cheek humor. The cards were stylish and the rules weren't too hard to learn. They went to as many conventions as possible, always buying up some space at huge events like GenCon, desperately trying to promote their game.

It hobbled along for several years then died unceremoniously. Barely made it to 3 sets, I think. May not have even gone that far. In all the ways that people will say mattered, it was a good game that tried to solve the complaints MtG and other ccg players complained about. It still died, however, because you absolutely CANNOT overwhelm the sunk cost loyalty that people have for the biggest games. Happens with vidya constantly, in fact. How many WoW killers and LoL clones have come and gone? How many companies have already pissed away hundreds of millions trying to make the next Overwatch or Fortnite? Once a game has a strong following and people have invested tons of money and hours into it, you will never break them from it until the game itself drives them away.

MtG is no different. In fact, it's worse, because the barrier to entry for serious competitive play is months long and several hundred dollars high. Made worse by the fact that every few months they release new cards that fuck up the meta and require even more money from serious followers. Any new card game that comes along first has to convince potential customers that it is worth their time, and then it has to pry the money from their hands, and then it has to maintain an active and lively community long enough for future sets to come along and lure in more and more people. Anyone looking to get into a card game will gravitate towards MtG or YGO, because that's what other people play, and where multiplayer competitive games are concerned, players are content, and the biggest games have the most players, which makes them the most valuable to other players.


 No.421294

>>421259

>So I am thinking of making a card game like magic

Well there's your problem.


 No.421302

File: 032b164ca69195c⋯.jpg (316.61 KB, 622x850, 311:425, 3e149746-6dfd-4ddb-be17-be….jpg)

>>421292

>Once a game has a strong following and people have invested tons of money and hours into it, you will never break them from it until the game itself drives them away.

Fucking this. If you want a great example of disruption for the current TCGs, just look at FoW.

FoW's gameplay was a hybrid of Magic's best elements while it tried to handle some problems with Magic's designs. It adopted a higher number scale for creature power so cards could have more nuanced power. It split the resource deck into a separate deck while allowing it to be customizable like Magic's lands. It had J-Rulers similar to EDH's Commanders (this was released in the states during the major start of the EDH boom) to add consistency for decks while adopting rules for allowing multiple copies of cards. Aesthetically, it took an anime route to make it accessible while giving enough detail to make the cards visually impressive (as opposed to the stagnant colorizing Magic uses or the clusterfuck YuGiOh tries when it isn't just taking a character plastered over some generic background).

The takeaway is that Force of Will was built to fundamentally balance consistency in play with customizability, making the game keep a steady pace. Players still had to answer to luck, but they weren't as blatantly screwed as in games like Magic. Magic is fundamentally screwed because they dedicated that one color would have consistency as a defining trait (blue's draw).

FoW was, for a while, a decent alternative to MtG with a respectable playerbase, which was a big deal considering that it didn't have a major brand behind it (Pokemon, Final Fantasy) nor a TV show advertising it to 10 year olds (YuGiOh). As the playerbase grew, cards started to gain value as well, so collections were actually worth amassing.

It had a very good run, then Millennia of Ages was released. Millennia of Ages is a prime example of what NOT to do for an expansion, and pretty much put the game on life support ever since.

Millennia of Ages contained a shortened number of cards compared to previous expansions - about 50 in total. A booster box contains 36 packs. It tried to make up for this with expanded rarities, but you didn't really need to buy a lot of product to get every single card within it.


 No.421307

>>421259

If you want to make a card game because you like it and it looks fun and all, go for it.

However do not, I repeat DO NOT expect a market success...ever.

Not even when you're a few years in and selling pretty well, do not expect it.

I used to play YGO! as a kid like everyone else, went over to MtG in my late teens and made a Pokemon deck for casual, fun play with a friend with Pokemon we like.

I have invested hundreds of euros in MtG already, and it's all just boosters, fat packs, some starter decks, couple of drafts, lots of pre-releases and a handful of casual decks.

More casual decks are on the way, I already know it, heck I was updating my wants list on Cardmarket yesterevening for a nice EDH card while I have no one to play EDH with.

Let me cut to the important part before this thread becomes my own blog; people are already too invested in a cardgame to start with another.

Nobody who plays MtG frequently will just quit and start another game even if it's better or more fun that MtG.

At best, they'll ease on MtG to allow some space for the new TCG to be played but that's it.


 No.421313

>>421302

Is FoW still ongoing?


 No.421314

>>421302

>you didn't really need to buy a lot of product to get every single card within it

I'm sorry, did you just say that being able to actually collect the full set of cards is a bad thing?


 No.421319

File: 6b11a13cabc80b3⋯.png (351.09 KB, 300x419, 300:419, PELVIC THRUST.png)

>>421314

For the health of a game, yes, being able to pay $50 (or whatever the price of a MoA box is going for now) for the entire expansion is terrible for the growth of an expansion.

Imagine for a moment if the next major expansion for whatever game you play could be collected by buying 5 intro decks. That's what buying a booster box of MoA is like.

If players are capable of buying a single box for about $50-$80 and getting a copy of every single card (we're not caring about alternate printings here), that pretty much caps the value for the set. Shops don't want to invest in a game without value because they can't make a return selling singles, and for a product where most players aren't going to have an incentive to keep opening packs (this expansion didn't have any J-Rulers, so you couldn't even really build new decks from it), there's not going to be a reason to push sealed either. Without shops that host the game, you don't have a reason for players to gather to play it.

<inb4 "Jewish is bad"

Jewing players is bad, but you can make a TCG without doing MtG-levels of Jewing.

>>421313

It's still ongoing, but the momentum it was building before MoA ground to a halt. It could recover beyond "just there," but that's going to take a lot of trust and effort.

Honestly I can't make a call for how long the game will last since I don't know enough about the Japanese market to tell you where it's at over there, nor do I really care to look at e-card markets.


 No.421320

>>421319

>Imagine for a moment if the next major expansion for whatever game you play could be collected by buying 5 intro decks.

Nice. That means all players can be on an even playing field with less pay to win bullshit.

> Shops don't want to invest in a game without value because they can't make a return selling singles

Every game that this statement applies to should be wiped from the face of the earth, along with the faggots who play them.


 No.421328

File: ea3f5312f1d049e⋯.jpg (33.92 KB, 666x457, 666:457, Squall.jpg)

>>421320

>Nice. That means all players can be on an even playing field with less pay to win bullshit.

Pay2win implies that there's no upper ceiling for access. There are two approaches to this, models where there is no upper bound and thus a reason to always sink money (games like Clash Royale) or games where progression is entirely determined by chance (AAA gaming).

TCGs have a third option: the secondary market for buying singles. Because of that, it isn't pay2win since after a certain threshold, you have access to every single card on the market, and even then you don't need to invest the cost of the entire fucking expansion to build a decent deck. In a healthy game, $80 should get you a good deck. Not the entire expansion, or just the cost of your resources!

All of that ignores the fact that we're talking about an expansion with literally only 50 cards. Having literally only five deck's worth of cards to choose from is boring.

>Every game that this statement applies to should be wiped from the face of the earth, along with the faggots who play them.

So, you don't think TCGs should exist, and you hate people who play them? Because that's exactly what you're implying, since if there's no value in the cards themselves, then there's no reason for people to build a collection, much less gather with dozens of people over the same collection and play a game with them. So, what are you doing on /tg/ then?


 No.421330

File: 0e39b53d748df16⋯.jpg (69.99 KB, 431x450, 431:450, 1435009840357.jpg)

>>421320

>Every game that this statement applies to should be wiped from the face of the earth, along with the faggots who play them.

So your cards need to be complete money sinks with no chance of any return at all.

You want to pay 80 dollars for 50 pieces of cardboard with nice drawings on them and when you're tired of those or they rotate out they turn into pure, solid scrap paper.

Bloody hell you're dense.


 No.421332

>>421330

>(((chance of return)))

Blow it out your ass. I started playing this show game for the actual game, not so I could play Wall Street Jr.

>>421328

>In a healthy game, $80 should get you a good deck.

I own a paper legacy deck and this still reads like utter madness. How did we get here?


 No.421352

File: 1d2fe3c70c4a59c⋯.png (396.28 KB, 709x678, 709:678, Inevitable.png)

>>421332

>Wanting some money back from second hand products is Jewry

Nobody here was talking about investing in a TCG, merely value retention of the cards themselves.

You really are this dense.


 No.421353

>>421330

>Bloody hell you're dense.

Are you trying to make a point? You're trying so hard to look condescending to hide that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, that you end up babbling.

>>421332

>How did we get here?

Reserve List is a bitch.


 No.421354

>>421330

>You want to pay 80 dollars for 50 pieces of cardboard with nice drawings on them and when you're tired of those or they rotate out they turn into pure, solid scrap paper.

Actually, I'd prefer paying a lower up-front cost and yes, eventually having those cards cycle off into the ether, as long as it means there's no buying advantage for people with a lot of money to blow, and no secondary market faggotry with people like you looking for "returns" on an item bought for entertainment, and less incentive to actually sell cards that likely won't be back.


 No.421355

>>421354

>Actually, I'd prefer paying a lower up-front cost

We all do, but that's very unrealistic considering profit marges on the things.

>no secondary market faggotry with people like you looking for "returns" on an item bought for entertainment

Selling unused cards is a way for people like me to curb the cost of the hobby, and a secondary market helps with this too.


 No.421356

>>421355

>but that's very unrealistic

No it's not.

>Selling unused cards is a way for people like me to curb the cost of the hobby, and a secondary market helps with this too.

The secondary market is the reason that hebrews like you need to "curb the cost" in the first place.


 No.421359

>>421356

>No it's not.

Have you got any idea of how expensive and risky it is for a company to run a TCG game?

Initial costs that are not salvageable when it fails, lots of designing and playtesting, hiring artists to make the art of the cards, logistics of distribution, PR.

Sure once you get to WotC levels this gets less expensive and risky but the price is still there.

>The secondary market is the reason that hebrews like you need to "curb the cost" in the first place.

Paying €100 for a booster box and still not getting the cards you need is the reason why I need to curb the cost and why the secondary market is necessary.

A secondary market is inherent to a good-running and healthy TCG.


 No.421360

>>421359

>Have you got any idea of how expensive and risky it is for a company to run a TCG game?

Reality disagrees with all of your hypothetical bullshit about what you think about costs. Feel free to go on about how it's impossible while games exist that use this exact business model.

>Paying €100 for a booster box and still not getting the cards you need is the reason why I need to curb the cost and why the secondary market is necessary.

This is what is known as a "feedback loop". Card value drives itself, enhanced by its rarity.

You just don't seem to get it, do you? You're the cause of your own problems, not to mention the cause of problems for everyone else. I want to play a fucking card game. If I wanted to play the stock market and make investments and resell things, I would do exactly that. God knows it would be far more rewarding, and probably less expensive than CCG bullshit.


 No.421373

>>421330

What game on the planet needs a secondary market to function? Why does resell value impact the enjoyment of the game at all? We're talking about buying card games because we think they're fun. Nobody sinks money into a board game or to start a wargaming collection because they plan on turning it over for a profit in a few months. This isn't a stock market.

The problem here is these blind boosters. There's no cost that should be curbed, the cost shouldn't even exist in the first place. No one should have to shell out €100 and not get what they need. Where I'm from, we call that "gambling". Card games need to be treated like board games. Everyone who buys a board game knows exactly what they're getting out of it; there's no randomness, no chance of earning back your money. But the consumer always knows exactly what they're getting.


 No.421375

>>421360

>Reality disagrees with all of your hypothetical bullshit about what you think about costs.

<Zero arguments whatsoever

Ok.

>If I wanted to play the stock market and make investments and resell things, I would do exactly that.

Nobody said anything about investing, I'm talking about being able to sell the stuff you bought back for a reasonable amount to sustain the hobby.

No investing, not even profit, just at least 50-80% of the original value would be a lot.

>>421373

>What game on the planet needs a secondary market to function?

It's in the name itself: TRADING card game.

It's built around "trade card X for card Y", and of course one can switch X or Y out for money.

>Nobody sinks money into a board game or to start a wargaming collection because they plan on turning it over for a profit in a few months. This isn't a stock market.

Are you people even reading my posts?

Nobody is talking about investing, I'm only talking about the product retaining a certain amount of the money you spend so that the hobby doesn't get as expensive.

It's the same as being able to sell your ship models for wargames, but then with cards.

>The problem here is these blind boosters.

Well, something we can agree on then.

I have no idea what else to use for a TCG however, because everybody getting what they want takes out the T and and turns it into a C.

It would also mess with the whole drafting part (MtG comes into mind), one could argue (and I think WotC does exactly that against gambling allegations) that boosters are only meant to be drafted and not to be sold separately.


 No.421377

File: 6fe7b8e9ffd61ed⋯.jpg (35.65 KB, 500x375, 4:3, vegeto.jpg)

>>421360

>Reality disagrees with all of your hypothetical bullshit about what you think about costs.

So, let me get this straight, you're disagreeing with anon's point that there's costs for building, testing, promoting, and distributing a game?

You seem legitimately retarded, and I can only imagine the sheer autism whenever you try to go into a card shop.

>"Hey, this card looks like it could go into my deck. I'll take it!"

<"Great, that'll be $5."

>"Five dollars!?! You mean it isn't free? What the fuck dude, all it is is a piece of cardboard! Stop trying to Jew me!"

<"Well, I need to run a business, and if you really didn't see any value in it, you could literally just go out and buy cardboard."

>"But I don't want cardboard, I want this card for my deck!"

<thinkingemoji.png

Personally I'm tired of seeing the retarded "it's just cardboard and ink" non-argument since you can pretty much use that for any other collectable. vintage toys are just plastic/metal and paint. Stamps are just paper, ink, and adhesive. Records are just vinyl.

>>421373

>Nobody sinks money into a board game

Board games are standalone product. For most of them, there isn't an active market looking for each of their components because there's no higher level of play for them. If I go out and buy Clue, it's going to have the same components as earlier runs of Clue, and there isn't going to be a Clue 2 that I can be more competitive with by using the Clue 1 pieces.

>to start a wargaming collection

<Wargaming is cheap

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

>No one should have to shell out €100 and not get what they need.

If you're going out and shelling for a booster box, you should have the components needed to trade for the other pieces you need.

The problem isn't boosters, the problem is chase cards - cards that artificially inflate the value of a set with such a contrast to the lower end of the spectrum that players aren't guaranteed to make even on their collection's value, and offer such a discrepancy that they make trading unfeasible.

Want an example? Look at the RtR block for Magic. Right now on Amazon, an RtR pack goes for about $5, which isn't too bad because it contains a lot of cards like Chromatic Lantern and the shocklands. Gatecrash goes for about $4, the baseline, since it has the shocklands but not much else. Meanwhile, Dragon's Maze goes for about $5.25, not because of any high-value lands, not because of a strong run, but because of Voice of Resurgence and Ral. Two fucking cards, and that's on the tamer side of examples Magic gives whenever we've had shit like Masters 25.


 No.421378

>>421377

>So, let me get this straight, you're disagreeing with anon's point that there's costs for building, testing, promoting, and distributing a game?

No, CCG dicksucker. I'm disagreeing with anon's point that LCGs can't exist..


 No.421379

>>421378

You said you wanted to play with a lower up-front cost, I argued that since stuff costs money, and people need to eat, cards can only be so cheap and a lot cheaper than MtG is not going to happen.


 No.421380

>>421379

>I argued that since stuff costs money, and people need to eat, cards can only be so cheap and a lot cheaper than MtG is not going to happen.

And you were wrong. Three of every single card for six years for less than the cost of most competitive Modern Magic decks is certainly a much lower cost.


 No.421385

File: 9c299e39a5db782⋯.jpg (286.93 KB, 2199x2264, 2199:2264, acef4fc1b9885575b104e3c5f8….jpg)

>>421380

>>I argued that since stuff costs money, and people need to eat, cards can only be so cheap

>And you were wrong

So, with regards to my comment, you really are disagreeing with the other anon that games cost money to make?

Are you retarded or 12?

>Three of every single card for six years for less than the cost of most competitive Modern Magic decks is certainly a much lower cost.

What the fuck are you even babbling about? Are you trying to say that three copies of a single card being available upfront would cost less? To whom, the consumer or the game maker? Because if it's the game maker, you're wrong in that the costs for art, promotion, printing etc wouldn't change, and if you think it would cost less for the player, then that's only going to be true if the product isn't worth buying (FoW's MoA) or it's going to be ridiculously expensive because players know what they're going to be buying, leading to a shortage of product until you overprint (MtG's Hazoret Challenger deck or FtV line).

If you would be buying three of every single card in a fixed product, that would mean that for two players. who want to build decks would need to buy the encompassing sealed product. For 90% of players, this would give them a huge bulk of cards that they are both never going to use and never going to trade away (since everyone else has a complete collection). The only way these players would be happy would be to sell cards to the players who can't afford the massive upfront cost of the entire set, except you've set up a model where the value of a collection is capped, so the cards themselves don't have any value, so LGSs can't sustain a profit selling singles back to the playerbase. So, what you have left is a game that costs about $100 to play, with absolutely no stores dedicated to selling product, with an awkward product line with no avenue for players to make single-digit purchases.

Goddamn, you have zero idea what you are talking about.


 No.421395

>>421385

>So, with regards to my comment, you really are disagreeing with the other anon that games cost money to make?

No, I disagree at a fundamental level with

>that's very unrealistic considering profit marges on the things.

Everything that was said follows that, too bad you weren't following along.

>blah blah resale magic dens stores dedicated to shitty aftermarkets

I dunno man, Netrunner was doing just fine and would've continued doing just fine were it not for WotC killing it off.


 No.421398

>>421380

>And you were wrong. Three of every single card for six years for less than the cost of most competitive Modern Magic decks is certainly a much lower cost.

I don't know in what world you live in, or if you even read my posts, or if you're deliberately being retarded, but cards cost money.

Selling booster packs cheaper than €2,25 to retail and less than €3,50 to actual costumers is almost impossible unless you want to sell shit quality cards even worse than MtG.

What do you want to sell cards for, €1 per booster? Get a grip.

>>421395

>I dunno man, Netrunner was doing just fine and would've continued doing just fine were it not for WotC killing it off.

Huh, seems like Netrunners wasn't doing so fine financially-wise...I wonder how that would come?


 No.421401

>>421398

>Huh, seems like Netrunners wasn't doing so fine financially-wise...I wonder how that would come?

Because Wizards of the Coast pulled its license, and Fantasy Flight Games was forced to stop selling it. The game itself was doing perfectly well and was successful enough to be settling into a long term plan, with a new lead designer brought in, revised core set, cycling just kicking off and so on. It's a perfectly viable and possible business model, it's the best thing possible for the consumer, and it's the best thing possible for the quality of the game itself.

In other words, you're wrong. Fuck CCGs and their out of date, anti-consumer business model.


 No.421403

>>421401

>In other words, you're wrong.

Yet the business decisions of WotC say otherwise.

Sure, it might have made a profit, but probably not enough for them.


 No.421404

>>421403

WotC wasn't selling Netrunner, they were licensing the IP to Fantasy Flight. They revoked the license to kill their competitor.


 No.421405

>>421404

>They revoked the license to kill their competitor.

Kind of a smart move, but it raises the question why WotC didn't sell it in the first place.


 No.421406

>>421404

What competitor? WotC weren't selling Netrunner and they were getting money from the license.


 No.421408

>>421406

I take that Fantasy Flight was also concurrence of them and putting them into a tighter spot by revoking the license of Netrunners could help rooting them out.

Question is how much of an effect this would have on the long term.


 No.421413

>>421405

>why WotC didn't sell it in the first place.

Why would they? Their entire business model is based around creating one product (Magic) that every kind of player buys. Johnny/Timmy/Spike and Melvin/Vorthos are marketing terms after all.

Why create 2 products when you can have them all buy 1? This is also why so much of every set is made for limited.


 No.421418

File: 30c77de37324057⋯.jpg (745.89 KB, 1500x1500, 1:1, Scream Bloody Gore.jpg)

Would it be possible to build an entire card game around the concept of using your life as the main resource to make plays? I'm thinking about something necromancy themed.


 No.421419

>>421418

Concept sounds good, but I don't know how you would balance that.


 No.421424

>>421289

>MLP, but I have no idea how [it plays]

It's not that interesting. Instead of reducing your opponent's life to 0 or something similar, both players try to count to X as quickly as possible, and all the cards either let you count more quickly or spend points to do some minor effects. There's very little interaction, which is great if you're an 11-year-old girl but quite poor otherwise.

At least it had some cool characters like Nightmare Star.

>>421302

Another thing about FoW that harmed it was the continual mismanagement of player trust and design space. What little I know about the pro scene involves fraudulent judge calls, possible collusion and cronyism, and large stretches of radio silence from the designers. The most recent development, around four to six months ago, was the firing of the two community managers who were the one source of information for fans of the game.

>>421328

>it isn't pay2win after a certain threshold

>therefore it's not pay2win!

<being this disingenuous

Don't pretend the cost of buying singles on the fluctuating secondary market isn't a progress barrier just as effective as buying them from a static publisher's store. I'd be willing to pay a few dollars more per card or paying higher entry costs to justify the cost of printing them and commissioning good art and to ensure the company stayed afloat, but you're a true kike if you think the healthiest way to extract that money is to involve a hundred secondary retailers and to generate an economy around the potential value of any given booster pack.

>>421319

>>421330

>>421352

>jewing players is bad, but if you don't jew them then they won't play

>whoa, dude, i was talking about getting money back, not getting money back

You need to read more than the first four words of each sentence to post on this board. Piss off.


 No.421427

>>421418

Now this is an interesting idea, because my experience in MTG and YGO tells me that paying life is almost always an inherently broken thing to do because it circumvents the established resource systems for those games (or the other restrictions, in YGO's case). If it were the primary method of playing cards, though, then obviously that would go out the window. There are a couple hitches which I can foresee causing problems:

>if both players pay from the same resource all the time, the game becomes samey

It'd be like Hearthstone or Shadowverse without the class-specific cards, which would make already generic games even more painfully generic.

>if the win condition involves reducing your opponent's life points to 0, then the game would be one-dimensional

Alternate win conditions would need to be hard-designed into the game rules to prevent aggro from being the only strategy. Perhaps players could amass occult talismans to perform The Ultimate Ritual and win the game.

>if you can't get life back, then one player can become locked out early on if he can't answer the board

If you can gain life, then what's the difference between:

<play card > do effect

<play card > gain life > pay life > do effect

besides the second one being needlessly complicated?

Perhaps these problems could be circumvented if you had multiple "life" resources to pay, like giving up organs or bones or something. That way, you could establish different types of undead requiring different reagents (Frankenstein's monsters vs skeletons vs ghosts vs vampires), but which would all still come from the same pool of viscera. You'd also need to have some way of recouping these resources, or limiting the way they're spent in a single turn. Life doesn't "refresh" each turn the way lands/mana crystal do in other games.

I'm very interested in this concept as a whole, though. It has much opportunity for flavourful cards and mechanics, and a dark tone like this isn't very prevalent in modern fantasy. Keep us posted if you brew anything.


 No.421428

File: e8b00691469c117⋯.png (1.6 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Tw3_Gwent_Toussaint_Tourna….png)

Specifically about MtG. And more specifically, MtG of days gone by.

>likes

ability to stuff a deck into a pocket of a bag, and go

multiple deck archetypes

interesting art, and inspiration, from japanese to slavic

as casual or competitive as you want

combos are a feature, not a bug, that can be stopped by control

ranges from dead simple, to incredibly complex

mix of poker and chess - hidden information, chance, but paired with tactics, strategy

multiple game formats

easy to build around themes, either mechanical or flavor

<dislikes

artificial scarcity and rarity

shit art and card design

hamfisted politics

dumbing down of cards, mechanics, because of online

shit card quality

Specifically about other card games, analog or digital.

>likes

fun to play

loses due to choices made, same with wins

alternative win conditions

<dislikes

money sink when other games, including vidya, are better value

more hamfisted politics

inability to project a metagame

old decks nerfed, new cards with power creep to force buy ins

not enough variety in decks, or in players piloting them

or I straight up hate the average player

censorship

At this point, I play Gwent for my card game fix. Or a board game with "deck building" mechanics. Still own MtG decks, because fuck it, sunk cost, and they have sentimental value now.


 No.421431

>>421418

Isn't that basically all of Decipher's old games where your deck is your life?


 No.421441

File: dfb383243c2bda7⋯.png (686.57 KB, 540x540, 1:1, dfb383243c2bda78b3e8c43153….png)

>>421427

What if there were separate life pools, for example "mind", "body" and "soul" that could each be tapped into for different flavourful effects, but you only have to deplete one to win the game? You could even have cards that, for instance, transferred life from one pool to another, sacrificing "soul" power to restore the "body". This could also tie into a bit of a rock-paper-scissors system, if even more variety works well for the game.

My initial idea for life gain for the game was for players to gain varying amounts whenever they destroy an opponent's card, but that still runs into the problem of a player being potentially unable to answer the board at times. Either that, or life was only used for summoning, but one could use various artefacts or potions to perform other effects that couldn't be used to win the game in and of themselves, and had to support what was summoned.

This is an idea I've been sat on for a while but I've never really talked to anyone about. I've designed custom Magic and Yugioh cards for a while now, and I really want to take this further. I feel like it's an idea where flavourfully the focus can be the players too, rather than Yugioh's lack of consistent flavour in general, or Magic's new direction of printed planeswalkers being the real heroes of the story, and the players just seem to watch things happen between them. Plus I like the dark tone for it I've built up in my head.


 No.421445

File: 0d79dedfb31d498⋯.jpg (198.58 KB, 550x309, 550:309, mtg-challenger-decks.jpg)

>>421424

>Don't pretend the cost of buying singles on the fluctuating secondary market isn't a progress barrier just as effective as buying them from a static publisher's store.

Holy shit anon, I don't even know where to start with this, it's so stupid.

How about with fact that model would only work with small games where shortage of firsthand singles isn't feasible, or that you're now suggesting a model where bad cards are priced equally with good ones (remember all of those reasons WotC can't formally acknowledge the secondary market?). Pic very related.

<But Netrunner...

...Is a meme. If it ran a production line as large as MtG, every single chase card would immediately be out of stock on the first-party site, so effectively nothing changed.

>>therefore it's not pay2win!

><being this disingenuous

<Not knowing what pay2win means

Take a look at the top 8 for the Guilds of Ravnica Pro Tour, go look at the price of the decks, and double check where they place on the ladder.

Sinking more money into the game will not make you a better player. It will not make you a better deckbuilder. After you reach the threshold where you can afford every card you want to run, it will not make your cards more powerful.

<But it's still pay2win because it's expensive

TCGs are a luxury product.

>but you're a true kike if you think the healthiest way to extract that money is to involve a hundred secondary retailers

<If I say "kike" enough, that will make people think I know economics

Anon, stop being retarded. If you don't have a market of people who want to play your cards after they've rotated out, that means that your product beforehand was actual shit.

>You need to read more than the first four words of each sentence to post on this board. Piss off.

Maybe you want to take your own advice? You're the one thinking the third post you quoted was written by the first, and wondering why they're making two different arguments. Instead of addressing either post's core arguments, you took a 50/50 shot at the "/tg/ is one anon" meme. I wouldn't be lingering on this for so long, but this is just a microcosm for how little thought you're putting behind your shite.

And for all of this shit of "reading past the first four words," you're the one who isn't saying anything other than "waaah, I don't like paying for hobbies, and you disagree you're a Jew!"

Grow up, Brony.


 No.421450

>>421445

You're entire argument is

>without $20 chase cards a game will fail

Netrunner proved you wrong. Netrunner also didn't NEED sets as large as Magic because it didn't waste 80% of each set on limited chaff.


 No.421452

>>421450

>Netrunner proved you wrong.

Kind of weird that your biggest argument is a dead game.


 No.421454

>>421452

>Kind of weird that your biggest argument is a dead game.

It's a pretty solid argument considering that its death was unrelated to its success or failure as a product. WotC kills the game, WotC fans proceed to use its death to "prove" that it did poorly. How incestuous.


 No.421455

>>421454

>It's a pretty solid argument considering that its death was unrelated to its success or failure as a product

WotC felt sure enough to cut off a relatively passive source of income.


 No.421456

File: 193395243b04492⋯.gif (85.05 KB, 450x523, 450:523, 83fcce66526fd6953d99e35303….gif)

>>421455

Because they were a competitor you cocksucker. Each dollar spent on literally any other card game is a dollar not being spent on Magic.


 No.421457

>>421455

>WotC felt sure enough to cut off a relatively passive source of income.

Yeah. They felt sure that they were in hot water at the time for all the fucking pedophiles they keep in their ranks and cover for. Asmodee was continuing to grow as a company that was in competition to Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro. Hasbro took them down a peg in that market, because they could.

It also has the added bonus of making retards like you think things like "Oh, looks like LCGs can't be successful! Back to my lootboxes!"


 No.421459

>>421268

Pretty much this. The gameplay is superb. The shekel-grubbing is absolute cancer.


 No.421461

>>421459

>The gameplay is superb.

>my dudes fight your dudes topdecking garbage from 25 years ago

>superb

The shekel-grubbing is a limiting factor on the quality of the gameplay too, the only reason Magic is still relevant is its own inertia.


 No.421466

>>421455

>>421454

>>421457

Do we know the real reason why the contract between FFG and WotC ended?

I once heard this theory. FFG is owned by Asmodee, who is in turn owned by Eurazeo, a private equity firm; it's because of Eurazeo that Asmodee has been gobbling up a bunch of smaller companies, including FFG. The intent is that Eurazeo may be planning to flip Asmodee for a profit, as private equity firms tend to do. They made the final decision to terminate the contract with WotC because they want to maximize profit and were afraid they wouldn't be able to justify the expenses of paying rent on the Netrunner IP to potential buyers. At least I'm pretty sure that's how it goes; I guess I'm not too knowledgeable on these things yet.

WotC sitting on an IP just so that that no one else can use it is more likely; they do have a history of pulling that kind of shit. Just something to think about.

I feel like we should have a dedicated LCG thread for this.


 No.421469

>>421466

> They made the final decision to terminate the contract with WotC because they want to maximize profit and were afraid they wouldn't be able to justify the expenses of paying rent on the Netrunner IP to potential buyers.

Honestly, I think that's unlikely, at least under normal circumstances. With that renewal coming up, if it were truly planned to ditch the contract there's no way they would have wasted the effort on all of the planning, PR, and production that went into what basically amounts to version 2 of the game with the balancing changes. That's in addition to hiring a new lead designer and everything.

Really, I see only two possible reasons for what happened.

1) Hasbro demanded significantly more money for the license, but wound up looking for too large a bite of the profits.

2) Hasbro demanded an exorbitant amount for licensing, or simply outright refused to renew the licensing.

(((Eurazeo)))'s involvement is certainly unwelcome and causing lots of bad things for the board game industry, but the plan for Netrunner specifically was unfolding in a very long-term way, so it seems incredibly unlikely to me that the cancellation was planned by FFG or their investors in any way.


 No.421471

>>421469

Then I guess it would mean that the decision to terminate would have to have been quick and sudden enough that FFG didn't really have time to react. But I can't think of a logical reason for why an investor would ever make a move like that, so you're probably right.

>1) Hasbro demanded significantly more money for the license, but wound up looking for too large a bite of the profits.

>2) Hasbro demanded an exorbitant amount for licensing, or simply outright refused to renew the licensing.

This only affirms just how successful Netrunner really was. Would Hasbro have felt justified in doing either of those things if Netrunner wasn't making any money?


 No.421478

>>421456

You do realize that they got money from Netrunners too, right?

>>421457

>It also has the added bonus of making retards like you think things like "Oh, looks like LCGs can't be successful! Back to my lootboxes!"

This was never an argument of mine, I just argued that cards cost money.


 No.421501

File: f0703f32dc16a16⋯.png (1.48 MB, 1599x1004, 1599:1004, DrVeJghXQAEKhYw.png)

>>421450

If your game is selling to a global audience, and not one of your cards is worth $20, you have a shit product because nobody wants it.

I don't understand how you have such a problem understanding this.

<But Netrunner

Is a meme. I have literally never seen it during the boon you keep wanting to say happened to it, and I've seen shops selling boosters for a TCG based off of some Korean browser game with loli battleships.

<But that's not the point! The point is that if WotC didn't kill it, it would be successful!

"If it didn't get killed by competition, it would be alive!"

Besides not understanding how competition works, you're special pleading. Why didn't WotC kill off FoW completely then before MoA, Cardfight, Weiss Schwarz?

You don't have to go to the Jewing WotC does (as I said before, you hypocrite), but churning out a product that doesn't give any value in collecting means there isn't going to be an incentive to collect, which is the last thing you want in a TCG.


 No.421503

>>421501

>If your game is selling to a global audience, and not one of your cards is worth $20, you have a shit product because nobody wants it.

If every card in the game has a hard cap on its value of $15, and is readily accessible without rarities or secondhand markets, you aren't even playing the same game. And besides, if you still insist on going the kiked route of "muh aftermarket", alt-art promo cards were valued over $20.

> I have literally never seen it

Every games store, Magic shithole, and even comics shop sold it around here, along with every major board game retailer online.

>"If it didn't get killed by competition, it would be alive!"

>Besides not understanding how competition works, you're special pleading. Why didn't WotC kill off FoW completely then before MoA, Cardfight, Weiss Schwarz?

Because Wizards of the Coast doesn't own those games? Because Wizards of the Coast isn't licensing them to their respective publishers and can't issue a legally binding order for them to halt all production and sales by a given date? You seem to be having some severe trouble with the concept of licensing here. It's like asking why Decipher stopped producing the Star Wars CCG despite it being successful enough to have a 6 year run and an active following, it's because they simply were no longer allowed.


 No.421509

It's so sad. Netrunner seemed like such a perfect game. I read the rulebook and everything made so much sense mechanically and thematically. It was designed without booster lootbox packs. And it's basically dead now. I don't know if it's worth learning and playing.


 No.421510

>>421509

>I don't know if it's worth learning and playing.

I think it is, but you'd have to find a community to play it with.

Heck, you have to find the cards to begin with.


 No.421517

>>421510

>>421509

Yeah, finding the cards is difficult now. You'd have an easy enough time playing online with something like jinteki.net or Tabletop Simulator, but the actual cards will be very difficult to find, especially the last cycle and doubly so for the final deluxe expansion. They only managed to get one print run out of the last mid-sized box before the cutoff date.


 No.421578

People use them as either money laundering points or "investments".

Fuck you and everything you stand for if you turn a card game into some sort of financial thing.


 No.421600

I hate the planes walkers and things like. Basically , "meta" cards that are different and have different rules than the core cards.


 No.421635

waste of cash. same as warhammer.


 No.421643

>>421259

Trading card games are skinner boxes with the goal of getting people addicted. They are lootboxes before lootboxes were a thing in video games.

Its the most unhealthy hobby inside /tg/.


 No.421681

As someone who plays YGO

>no set rotation

>wide variety of tier 2-3 decks

>Fair-ish meta, most tier 1 decks involve back and forth interaction

<shortprints and few reprints of good stuff

<banlist can be stupid

<irl cards are expensive

<meta has been repetive the last few formats


 No.421687

Cost, power creep, and gimmicky set effects that never return.


 No.421689

>>421259

I like that its run by SJWS and tits are not allowed in their religion. but they will convert you to being gay as hard as they can.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / chori / cyoa / dempart / jp / lounge / sissy / socpl / yuri ]